Purely hypothetical - do you prefer the Hawks continue on this path of young players, short term contracts for vets, continue to build talent, and be in the mix every year, or.......

say screw it - we want the Super Bowl next year so bring in some expensive vets [like a Tony Gonzalzez or whatever] to help win in 2013 even if it screws up the salary cap for years to come and we follow a Super Bowl win with a string of down years where we don't make the playoffs.

Forget about the details of the above - I am just asking a philosophical question.

For me - Just ONE Super Bowl win is so important that I would gladly take that even if the Hawks were bad for years to come after that. I do not care about the dynasty. After living & dying through 28 seasons, I just want ONCE for the Hawks to win the Lombardi. I would sell my soul for this if I could figure out how that works. Anyone know where I can find Joe Hardy or Mr. Applegate?

I say build a dynasty. When does going for broke ever work in the NFL? Also, what happens when you go for broke but things still don't pan out the way you planned them? Build a young nucleus, make something special out of the Seattle Seahawks franchise. Why throw away everything they've been working on for one shot, when you can possibly have multiple shots down the road. Instant gratification isn't always the most gratify thing.

Go for broke doesn't work. That's what the Eagles tried to do the last two years and look where it got them. They have a system in place and with that system the team is obviously improving each and every year. Do I want them to shy away from big name free agents if its the right fit? No. However I don't want to see them go away from how the organization is being built because they say "we're so close we just need this one or two guys and we've got it." Nothing is guaranteed in the the NFL. There are too many questions with injuries in this league, so you can't afford to put all your eggs in one basket and hope they survive for that one glorious season. Too much risk.

"There is no delay of game. We did not let the team know we were scratching our balls"

Harbaugh is a lunatic and he'll either die on the sideline while trying to challenge the coin toss, or get into a filthy divorce from the 49ers that will end up with him getting $27 million a year from Michigan to fist fight the entire state of Ohio.

Dren wrote:I say build a dynasty. When does going for broke ever work in the NFL? Also, what happens when you go for broke but things still don't pan out the way you planned them? Build a young nucleus, make something special out of the Seattle Seahawks franchise. Why throw away everything they've been working on for one shot, when you can possibly have multiple shots down the road. Instant gratification isn't always the most gratify thing.

Outstanding post.

Ask Dan Snyder how often his FA spending sprees have bought him a championship.

No thanks, teams have caught up to the Patriots finesse up tempo Oregon gimmicky offense.......which is why they haven't won a SB since 2004. The AFC East has made the Pats appear better than they are. The fact is they get a six game head start on every other AFC team by having the Dolphins, Jets and Bills on their schedule every year, and it's been that way for a long time now.

I'd rather follow the Hawks/49'ers model. Big/athletic/fast/nasty D and ball control offense predicated on run game and dynamic QB play.

No thanks, teams have caught up to the Patriots finesse up tempo Oregon gimmicky offense.......which is why they haven't won a SB since 2004.

Uh, I'm not talking about copying their offense. I'm talking about their model of refusing to overpay for big-name FAs and consistently developing guys who fit their system.

And they haven't won a SB since 2004 because it's damn hard to win one. They've been contending for 12 years now.

I agree with your first sentence, but I still think they're overrated, and have been for a few years now. Put the Patriots in any other division and they'd be lucky to win 10-11 games........instead of their usual 13-14 in the awful AFC East.

drdiags wrote:Build a sustainable model. Augment in a judicious way. Look at doing smart additions like the Patriots did with Dillon, Moss and Welker.

As usual, our friend the good Doctor is spot on. Going for broke for a one year thing often backfires as has been mentioned several times in this thread. Do it right and you're in the mix every year and eventually you get one or two (please let it be God so I can die happy.....thank you).

Last edited by hawksfansinceday1 on Tue Jan 22, 2013 11:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

Sgt. Largent wrote:I agree with your first sentence, but I still think they're overrated, and have been for a few years now. Put the Patriots in any other division and they'd be lucky to win 10-11 games........instead of their usual 13-14 in the awful AFC East.

True enough, though the Jets have had a few sporadic good years. It really doesn't look like it's getting any tougher for the Pats anytime soon.

NFC West is definitely going to be a dog fight for years to come. All the more reason to consistently build for the future.

Buy low, sell high, hope for the best, plan for the worst, never trade the long term for the short term, and do all of this regardless of any feelings of urgency our competition might be giving us. This is what we do now. Enjoy it!

Unless Seattle trades away half their roster, I don't think breaking on "go for broke" is even possible. The roster is so young and so good. We aren't exactly the '94/'95 Rockets or the '08 Celtics. Those were old teams that made bold moves to win a championship.

What I am afraid of, and I think it will likely happen, is that Seattle passes on some premium talent in round one in favor of reaching for a need on the defensive line for a player that will likely have a James Carpenter type impact in the NFL. I don't mind the James Carpenter pick, because we didn't pass on anyone notable to get him. If we had passed on a WR like Roddy White or a TE like Zach Miller to get him, I'd be pissed. Well, that looks like a very real possibility this year.

kearly wrote:Unless Seattle trades away half their roster, I don't think breaking on "go for broke" is even possible. The roster is so young and so good. We aren't exactly the '94/'95 Rockets or the '08 Celtics. Those were old teams that made bold moves to win a championship.

What I am afraid of, and I think it will likely happen, is that Seattle passes on some premium talent in round one in favor of reaching for a need on the defensive line for a player that will likely have a James Carpenter type impact in the NFL. I don't mind the James Carpenter pick, because we didn't pass on anyone notable to get him. If we had passed on Roddy White or Zach Miller to get him, I'd be pissed. Well, that looks like a very real possibility this year.

Fortunately, JS has consistently harped on his support of the philosophy to pick the best player available over reaching for a need.

kearly wrote:Unless Seattle trades away half their roster, I don't think breaking on "go for broke" is even possible. The roster is so young and so good. We aren't exactly the '94/'95 Rockets or the '08 Celtics. Those were old teams that made bold moves to win a championship.

What I am afraid of, and I think it will likely happen, is that Seattle passes on some premium talent in round one in favor of reaching for a need on the defensive line for a player that will likely have a James Carpenter type impact in the NFL. I don't mind the James Carpenter pick, because we didn't pass on anyone notable to get him. If we had passed on Roddy White or Zach Miller to get him, I'd be pissed. Well, that looks like a very real possibility this year.

Fortunately, JS has consistently harped on his support of the philosophy to pick the best player available over reaching for a need.

But we know that is not totally true. Irvin was a reach no doubt about it. but he was the right fit for our system in a spot of need.

Carpenter was also a reach and they did so because OL was our biggest weakness.

Now they think DL is our biggest weakness again which it is, but I think #2 WR, #2 TE, and OLB are also areas we can improve.

To think we could pass up a Pro Bowl WR, TE, or LB to draft a solid but unlikely Pro Bowl level DT or DE is reaching again. How pissed would you be if we get a DT who is not as porductive as Mebane or almost is equal but SF draft Hopkins and he turns into a weapon for years opposite Crabtree?

And even then, a lot of our answers for those areas that can use improvement can be found in free agency. As a matter of fact, the free agency pool this year is quite strong, and exactly fit our needs on the team. If we signed a Mike Wallace, Cliff Avril, or a Henry Melton, it would basically allow the FO to take a more relaxed approach towards the draft and merely take the best players available.

Going for broke with old vets rarely works in the NFL, injuries and the salaries seem to be a double negative, in fact our dedication to our own older vets may have created a lot of our demise in the first place, adding more dug the hole to bury us in.

We have built a predator here, something that wants blood and can go for it; unfortunately we are in the same situation now that we were in when the AFC West was our home. 49ers Good/ Broncos Good, Rams good/Raiders good,Seahawks Good/ Seahawks GoodCheifs good/ well no 5th team anymore here.Chargers offensively good/ Arizona defensively good (both can surprise on any Sunday)

To win we need to be young, hungry, aggressive and built for multiple seasons.

To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!! Check your PM's, Thank you for everything Radish RIP My Friend. Member of the 38 club.

Wenhawk wrote:But we know that is not totally true. Irvin was a reach no doubt about it. but he was the right fit for our system in a spot of need.

Carpenter was also a reach and they did so because OL was our biggest weakness.

Now they think DL is our biggest weakness again which it is, but I think #2 WR, #2 TE, and OLB are also areas we can improve.

To think we could pass up a Pro Bowl WR, TE, or LB to draft a solid but unlikely Pro Bowl level DT or DE is reaching again. How pissed would you be if we get a DT who is not as porductive as Mebane or almost is equal but SF draft Hopkins and he turns into a weapon for years opposite Crabtree?

That depends on how much credence you give to the stories about how the Jets would've taken Irvin shortly after where we had selected him and likewise with the Steelers and Carpenter. Regardless, "BPA vs need" is just a strange concept because BPA in itself is a subjective formula which factors in positions of need to one extent or another depending on the FO.

If the question was 1 guaranteed SB then followed by 4 bad years or 8 years of having a shot I would gladly take the SB.If there was a Reggie White out there that gave us the DL we want that might get us over the hump but signing meant we might lose players like Flynn,Carp, KC,Tate and Browner 2 years from now, I take White.I wouldnt break the bank for position like TE or WR but pocket collapsing DT are even harder to draft than franchise Qbs seems like.This offseason I would take a shot at the DTs in FA and take my chances even if it meant losing a couple of players down the road.I dont think drafting one of this years class will help us next year that much

Dren wrote:I say build a dynasty. When does going for broke ever work in the NFL? Also, what happens when you go for broke but things still don't pan out the way you planned them? Build a young nucleus, make something special out of the Seattle Seahawks franchise. Why throw away everything they've been working on for one shot, when you can possibly have multiple shots down the road. Instant gratification isn't always the most gratify thing.

How many times did the REDSKINS try to do the BUILD for one SB and totally fall flat on their face? I say do it like the packers,Pats,Colts,Steelers do and build it for the long hall.